Sonam Wangchug wrote:Guru Rinpoche was a man born to parents who had penises and vaginas.Thats my take. I dont buy the floral-birth legend at all and actually think it is completely unnecessary.

I think it can be a useful teaching tool if understood symbolically.

True that. What's the heart of the matter is differentiating between myth and fact. The former isn't just bollocks, of course, but its 'truth' is metaphorical, not literal. Read a myth literally and, lo and behold, it drops dead. Dodo-like.

Jikan wrote:I think it can be a useful teaching tool if understood symbolically.

True that. What's the heart of the matter is differentiating between myth and fact. The former isn't just bollocks, of course, but its 'truth' is metaphorical, not literal. Read a myth literally and, lo and behold, it drops dead. Dodo-like.

The multiple levels of meaning in the myth are all very nicely explained in the book White Lotus by Mipham Rinpoche.

Look at the unfathomable spinelessness of man: all the means he's been given to stay alert he uses, in the end, to ornament his sleep. – Rene Daumalthe modern mind has become so limited and single-visioned that it has lost touch with normal perception - John Michell

mint wrote:1. Jesus didn't need to be divine for Christianity to do anything. 2. Some of the greatest, most influential "heresies" in the years following the death of Jesus posited that he was a man, not divine. 3. Furthermore, you need to re-read every single one of Paul's letters, who believed in the divinity of Jesus, who was a faithful Jew, who advocated inclusion for both the Jews and the Greeks, and foresaw the day when all Jews and Greeks worshipped together.

Isn't that a contradiction? Your statement #1 doesn't seem to fit with your statements 2 and 3. If it is big heresy to say that Jesus is not divine and if Paul was adamant about Jesus being divine, then it does sound pretty important to Christianity for Jesus to be divine.

Either Jesus' teachings are meaningful or not, quite independent of his divinity.Many Christians have a view that Jesus' view of his mission changed over his career.At first he saw himself as "waking up lost Jews," but later reaching out to Gentiles.

If the Hillel-ite vision is equally meaningful to non-jews, spoke to and empoweredthe disenfranchised, slaves, women, eunichs, that may explain in part the appeal.I assume that Jesus and his message were at least as charismatic as Paul.as he branched out from his Pharisaic cocoon. Clearly, there was a healing element,and not just physical.

Something, that seems to have been lost, made "the way" more appealing thanMithras. Soren Kierkegaard said that there was only one thing wrong with Christianity--it was never tried! Maybe the desert fathers were on to something, but I think that"Sola Scriptura" is a symptom of having lost what we Buddhists call "oral transmission."The meaning, the impact, the significance behind the words has caused an ossificationthat resulted in creeds determining orthodoxy, as opposed to the lived experienceof following the way.

mint wrote:1. Jesus didn't need to be divine for Christianity to do anything. 2. Some of the greatest, most influential "heresies" in the years following the death of Jesus posited that he was a man, not divine. 3. Furthermore, you need to re-read every single one of Paul's letters, who believed in the divinity of Jesus, who was a faithful Jew, who advocated inclusion for both the Jews and the Greeks, and foresaw the day when all Jews and Greeks worshipped together.

Isn't that a contradiction? Your statement #1 doesn't seem to fit with your statements 2 and 3. If it is big heresy to say that Jesus is not divine and if Paul was adamant about Jesus being divine, then it does sound pretty important to Christianity for Jesus to be divine.

Indeed, this is why I do not follow his logic as it is inherently contradictory. I think at this point it is just mental gymnastics for the sake of.

mint wrote:1. Jesus didn't need to be divine for Christianity to do anything. 2. Some of the greatest, most influential "heresies" in the years following the death of Jesus posited that he was a man, not divine. 3. Furthermore, you need to re-read every single one of Paul's letters, who believed in the divinity of Jesus, who was a faithful Jew, who advocated inclusion for both the Jews and the Greeks, and foresaw the day when all Jews and Greeks worshipped together.

Isn't that a contradiction? Your statement #1 doesn't seem to fit with your statements 2 and 3. If it is big heresy to say that Jesus is not divine and if Paul was adamant about Jesus being divine, then it does sound pretty important to Christianity for Jesus to be divine.

To clarify:

Orthodox Christianity was not officially settled until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Until that time, there were theological disputes and various sects claiming to be the "true" Christian religion, among them being the prevailing orthodox Christians who claimed apostolic authority and possessed a certain cohesion not demonstrated by the other sects which exponentially split at the seams. However, even within the orthodox camp were certain bishops who claimed that Jesus was not divine, and this attracted a huge following, such a huge following that it almost trumped what we know today as the current form of dogmatic Christianity. It was a critical moment where history could have gone altogether differently.

Your confusion is well understood: that which is labelled as orthodox Christianity, which includes the belief in Jesus as divine, can be nothing else but orthodox Christianity. However, as Sebastian Castellio once wittily noted, "I have carefully examined what a heretic means, and I cannot make it mean more than this: a heretic is a man with whom you disagree." My point concerns the fact that, had history gone differently, Christianity could still have been called Christianity yet not involve any belief in a divine Jesus. Indeed, even today there are plenty of Christians who do not believe in the divinity of Christ.

Last edited by mint on Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Okay, then you admit that what got deemed 'correct' Christianity at the Council of Nicea was the divinity of Jesus and what is widely accepted by Christians throughout the globe is that Jesus is divine. Therefore, this is important to Christianity.

There may be some Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but they are far-and-in-between, very few in numbers.

David N. Snyder wrote:Okay, then you admit that what got deemed 'correct' Christianity at the Council of Nicea was the divinity of Jesus and what is widely accepted by Christians throughout the globe is that Jesus is divine. Therefore, this is important to Christianity.

Yes, but Infinite's point was that there was some group of apparently anti-Semitic Christians who felt compelled to distinguish themselves from Judaism, and did so by crafting a divine Jesus as a line in the sand of sorts. This is not the case at all.

There may be some Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but they are far-and-in-between, very few in numbers.

David N. Snyder wrote:Okay, then you admit that what got deemed 'correct' Christianity at the Council of Nicea was the divinity of Jesus and what is widely accepted by Christians throughout the globe is that Jesus is divine. Therefore, this is important to Christianity.

Yes, but Infinite's point was that there was some group of apparently anti-Semitic Christians who felt compelled to distinguish themselves from Judaism, and did so by crafting a divine Jesus as a line in the sand of sorts. This is not the case at all.

There may be some Christians who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but they are far-and-in-between, very few in numbers.

Indeed. Less than 1% based on the official numbers.

I can't tell if you are trolling or simply just trying to misrepresent what I said. What I was stating is that Divinity is what lead to the break from Judaic Tradition. There would be little point in claiming Divinity by Christians unless it was for the simple fact it would no longer give Rabbis authority over them. There is plenty of debate of whether Jesus was divine but the reality is it is largely accepted. That you are so aggressive over such trivial matters again highly amuses me.

Infinite wrote:I can't tell if you are trolling or simply just trying to misrepresent what I said. What I was stating is that Divinity is what lead to the break from Judaic Tradition. There would be little point in claiming Divinity by Christians unless it was for the simple fact it would no longer give Rabbis authority over them. There is plenty of debate of whether Jesus was divine but the reality is it is largely accepted. That you are so aggressive over such trivial matters again highly amuses me.

What's amusing is that you think I'm aggressive. What's also funny is how someone can be accused of being a troll so that their more educated, articulate responses can be easily dismissed.

Regardless, divinity was not the issue that lead to the schism between Jews and the Greeks, nor was it the central issue dividing Christians from the later Rabbinic Judaism. Jesus as Messiah was where the two parties could not agree. And I don't know where you're getting this idea from that the early Christians crafted a divine Jesus to deny the authority of the Rabbis. I can't begin to tell you how wrong that is, especially considering that the divinity of Jesus was attested by the earliest Christians (again, read Paul) yet Rabbinic Judaism didn't appear until after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, three years after Paul's purported death. Paul and the earliest Christians, who were largely Jews, believed that Jesus was the Messiah alluded to throughout the Hebrew Scriptures; however, there was the slight revision that this Messiah was not the expected earthly deliverer of the nation of Israel but, rather, a divine savior. If you read Acts 7, you'll see one of the earliest forms of historical early Christian preaching.

Infinite wrote:I can't tell if you are trolling or simply just trying to misrepresent what I said. What I was stating is that Divinity is what lead to the break from Judaic Tradition. There would be little point in claiming Divinity by Christians unless it was for the simple fact it would no longer give Rabbis authority over them. There is plenty of debate of whether Jesus was divine but the reality is it is largely accepted. That you are so aggressive over such trivial matters again highly amuses me.

What's amusing is that you think I'm aggressive. What's also funny is how someone can be accused of being a troll so that their more educated, articulate responses can be easily dismissed.

Regardless, divinity was not the issue that lead to the schism between Jews and the Greeks, nor was it the central issue dividing Christians from the later Rabbinic Judaism. Jesus as Messiah was where the two parties could not agree. And I don't know where you're getting this idea from that the early Christians crafted a divine Jesus to deny the authority of the Rabbis. I can't begin to tell you how wrong that is, especially considering that the divinity of Jesus was attested by the earliest Christians (again, read Paul) yet Rabbinic Judaism didn't appear until after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, three years after Paul's purported death. Paul and the earliest Christians, who were largely Jews, believed that Jesus was the Messiah alluded to throughout the Hebrew Scriptures; however, there was the slight revision that this Messiah was not the expected earthly deliverer of the nation of Israel but, rather, a divine savior. If you read Acts 7, you'll see one of the earliest forms of historical early Christian preaching.

You are a very sad and angry individual. I hope you can find peace but I no longer have an interest in interacting with someone who wants to be rude and passive aggressive over Mythical Jesus. Have a very nice day.

Infinite wrote:You are a very sad and angry individual. I hope you can find peace but I no longer have an interest in interacting with someone who wants to be rude and passive aggressive over Mythical Jesus. Have a very nice day.

mint wrote:Yes, but Infinite's point was that there was some group of apparently anti-Semitic Christians who felt compelled to distinguish themselves from Judaism, and did so by crafting a divine Jesus as a line in the sand of sorts. This is not the case at all.

In the Greek Orthodox tradition, during Easter, on the day following the ressurection, we have Jew burning day where it is traditional to burn effigies of the "quintessential Jew": Judas Iscariot! There have been lots of lines drawn in the sand, sea, earth and sky by antisemitic Christians across the whole of Europe, denying Jesus's ancestry. Did you forget the Spanish Inquisition for example? What about the events in Alexandria?

I knew a guy who got tired of always having to explain buddhism to people.When somebody would ask, "what church do you go to?"he would say, "wherever you think god is, that is where my church is!"

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

Most people base their beliefs of Jesus from the Bible. Influences come from different understanding of it...school, church, TV, family, peers, etc.

Constantine put the Bible together 300 years after Jesus' death. So it is said.What about the gnostic texts that were left out because they weren't understood?What do these texts reveal? Higher teachings? Could the Bible be like the Sutras and the gnostic texts be like the tantras?Jesus taught sutra and tantra.

All true spiritual and religious teaching leads to the same thing. Some are deeper than others depending on where we are in the desire realm. The goal is to get us closer to our true nature.

If people ask me if I believe in God I tell them I do, but in a different way. I then tell them I believe in what the Bible teaches and end it there. If there's further interest, I'll explain further depending on their disposition. Most of the time I say that all religions point to the same thing, there are just different ways of getting there. In actuality, the bible was not meant to be interpreted as Catholic or Baptist or Buddhist when the word was written.

If you are too strong in your outward beliefs you may alienate potential followers. Then you won't be able to keep an open relationship for a potentially stronger spritual friendship which should be the goal.

Religion start wars. Big ones (countries) and small ones. One on one conversation starts karma in motion which will always grows outward, growing bigger and bigger.